(29-10-2013 05:23 PM)Cathym112 Wrote: On a purely humanitarian standpoint - I agree. However, can you imagine the ramifications if this was actually achieved? People, animals, plants, etc., need to die in order to make room for new life. If no one died early, and everyone lived to ripe old ages of 90, we would populate ourselves into extinction. Not just us - deer, rabbits, plants - everything. There is a purpose for massive wildfires that destroy everything in its path - rebirth.

You can't form that conclusion in the absence of any reference to birth rate. Even if the human lifespan averaged 90-years it would only be a problem if we were constantly reproducing above the replacement rate. Those same factors apply to all animals.

Regarding plant life you are entirely wrong. The eucalypt trees in Australia's old-growth forrests are as old as 1000-years and the forrests in which they reside are hosts to stable populations of (diverse) flora and fauna. The old-growth forrests haven't experienced any disaster and they are fine.

Quote:I'm sure there is a better system to live than the brutality of death, I just can't imagine one.

There is no evidence that all ecological systems require periodic mass death.

Quote:Further, there would be no economy as you know it.

Yes there would. Aggregate supply would grow to meet aggregate demand as much as the production-possibility frontier permits. Then when supply shortages start prices will rise proportionally.

Quote:Money would be useless,

No it wouldn't, it would serve the same purpose that it does today.

Quote:and no one would work.

Yes they would. They would be working towards satisfying aggregate demand. The economy will be at full capacity so there would be full employment.

Quote:Infrastructure would collapse not only under the added weight of addition people, but from the lack of maintenance .

No it wouldn't. Public works would be funded by the taxation revenue generated by the full employment of the at capapcity economy.

A society/economy will only collapse due to overpopulation if its means of production are destroyed by the overpopulation (e.g. all arable land is destroyed by pollution) and if it can't import to satisfy its aggregate demand at at least subsistence level.

HERE is your proof. Click on the link of production frontier and where does it take you? Wikipedia...

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson

Please try and read the abstracts carefully and familiarise yourself with what a systematic review and meta-analysis mean and what Cochrane is. Don't come back to me with some idiotic response else I will ignore it.

There are more such authoritative systematic reviews and meta-analysis which I can provide you.

So there is good evidence that what the good doctor Fulton is advising actually increases mortality.

Further, the possible harmful effects of overdosing need to be set against the absence of any positive evidence for a therapeutic effect in overdosing.

(02-11-2013 10:37 PM)Cathym112 Wrote: HERE is your proof. Click on the link of production frontier and where does it take you? Wikipedia...

Yes and so what? I learnt about the PPF 15 years ago when I studied first-year economics. I provide links to Wikipedia as a courtesy so that if anyone doesn't understand something they can click the link.

(02-11-2013 10:26 AM)Stevil Wrote: Please present you link to the study of the quality you demand of Mark that supports your statement "Whatever benefit--if any at all--can be realised by just taking them at the RDA."

All of the data that the RDA is based on is evidence for my claim. I'm not going to to cite you a paper for every single nutrient. Name one and I'll cite you the papers that show that the RDA is adequate.

This is a weasel cop out.
What was asked for is "evidence in the form of double-blind placebo controlled clinical trials" that supports your claim "Whatever benefit--if any at all--can be realised by just taking them at the RDA."

Please provide.

You have slammed a fully qualified doctor with much experience and offered your own "medical" advise.
You either need to man up or back down.

(02-11-2013 06:33 PM)Chippy Wrote: All of the data that the RDA is based on is evidence for my claim. I'm not going to to cite you a paper for every single nutrient. Name one and I'll cite you the papers that show that the RDA is adequate.

This is a weasel cop out.
What was asked for is "evidence in the form of double-blind placebo controlled clinical trials" that supports your claim "Whatever benefit--if any at all--can be realised by just taking them at the RDA."

Please provide.

You have slammed a fully qualified doctor with much experience and offered your own "medical" advise.
You either need to man up or back down.